Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th Jul 2011 22:12 UTC
Microsoft "One of Microsoft's hottest new profit centers is a smartphone platform you've definitely heard of: Android. Google's Linux-based mobile operating system is a favorite target for Microsoft's patent attorneys, who are suing numerous Android vendors and just today announced that another manufacturer has agreed to write checks to Microsoft every time it ships an Android device. Microsoft's latest target is Wistron Corp., which has signed a patent agreement 'that provides broad coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio for Wistron's tablets, mobile phones, e-readers and other consumer devices running the Android or Chrome platform', Microsoft announced." That's the reality we live in, folks. This is at least as criminal - if not more so - than Microsoft's monopoly abuse late last century. After the Nortel crap, it's completely left the black helicopter camp for me: Microsoft, Apple, and several others are working together to fight Android the only way they know how: with underhand mafia tactics. Absolutely sickening. Hey Anonymous, are you listening? YES I WENT THERE.
Thread beginning with comment 479712
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Patents are patents
by lemur2 on Wed 6th Jul 2011 05:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Patents are patents"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

I take issue with the notion that software ideas/methods are nothing more than "math".


And if the argument is that any idea or algorithm that can be described (note the word "described" rather than "implemented") as 0's and 1's is "math", then all ideas are math.


You are arguing against the wrong concept.

A CPU (which runs the software) comprises and ALU (arithmetic and logic unit) and control circuits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_logic_unit
"In computing, an arithmetic logic unit (ALU) is a digital circuit that performs arithmetic and logical operations. The ALU is a fundamental building block of the central processing unit (CPU) of a computer"

All an ALU can do is math (since Boolean logic is also math). The ALU, and hence the CPU, can do nothing else. Thats it ... that is all a general purpose computer can do. Math. Therefore, software is math.

There is a branch of computer science (which itself is a sub-branch of mathematics) which is all about this precise matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability

"Computability is the ability to solve a problem in an effective manner. It is a key topic of the field of computability theory within mathematical logic and the theory of computation within computer science. The computability of a problem is closely linked to the existence of an algorithm to solve the problem."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory
"Computability theory, also called recursion theory, is a branch of mathematical logic that originated in the 1930s with the study of computable functions and Turing degrees. The field has grown to include the study of generalized computability and definability. In these areas, recursion theory overlaps with proof theory and effective descriptive set theory.

The basic questions addressed by recursion theory are "What does it mean for a function from the natural numbers to themselves to be computable?" and "How can noncomputable functions be classified into a hierarchy based on their level of noncomputability?". The answers to these questions have led to a rich theory that is still being actively researched."


Computability theory is the branch of mathematics that works out if a given function/problem/invention can, or cannot, be implemented in software.

Ergo, software is mathematics.

More here:
http://perlstalker.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-software-is-not-patenta...

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110426051819346
"This article provides a detailed factual explanation of why software is mathematics, complete with the references in mathematical and computer science literature."

It seems the software experts and the mathematicians disagree with you, Molly.

Bottom line: if someone spends millions of dollars developing something then someone else simply copies it and sells it at a lower price or gives it away, then the original inventor deserves some compensation.


Fox spent millions making (developing) the movie "Avatar". If "someone else simply copies it and sells it at a lower price or gives it away" then indeed, Fox do deserve some compensation. Absolutely, no question. This is, however, covered by copyright law, not patent law.

There is no reason why someone else shouldn't make another movie about an uprising of nine-foot blue aliens, however. They are perfectly entitled to do so, as long as they do their own work.

This is the reason why no-one takes any notice of things like this:
http://www.slashfilm.com/is-james-camerons-avatar-actually-an-uncre...
http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/01/05/pocahontas-avatar/

There is no doubt that the movie Avatar is an original work, even if parts of the story line are very reminiscent of older works. Copyright does not cover ideas, it covers literal copies.

Edited 2011-07-06 05:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6